Family Member Certificate = District Collector, Kurnool District passed an order on 1.5.2010 cancelling both the family member certificates dt.25.4.2002 and 29.5.2002 and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate orders. This Court in G.Vijaya Bhaskar and Others Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Manopad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District1, held that the issue relating to legal heirs of deceased persons has to be decided by the competent court of civil jurisdiction and it is open to the parties to pursue the remedies available in law and it is not open to Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar to issue certificates about family members. - (the District Collector) to cancel the certificates dt.25.4.2002 and 29.5.2002 by order dt.1.5.2010 is concerned, there is no provision in any enactment empowering the District Collector to decide the validity of a family member certificate issued by the Tahsildar. Therefore, the said order of 3rd respondent is also null and void as he has no jurisdiction to pass such orders. In fact when Thirupallamma died, her complaint abated.

REPOETED IN / PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9891

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO          

WP No.12441 of 2010

25.04.2013

D.Leelavathi and others....PETITIONERS

VERSUS  

The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad and others.....RESPONDENTS    

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: G.P. for Mines and Geology
Counsel for the Respondents 5 and 6: Smt.N.Shoba.

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred
1 Unreported decision dt.01-02-2001 in W.P.No.7430 of 2000

ORAL ORDER:  

        In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the orders dt.1.5.2010 of
the 3rd respondent-District Collector, Kurnool District cancelling the Family
Member Certificate granted in favour of petitioners by 4th respondent and
consequential order dt.10.5.2010 passed by 2nd respondent revoking the
proceedings No.7574/M4/99 dt.17-07-2002 declaring 1st petitioner as successor
lessee of her late husband D.Siva Sankar Reddy.
2. Heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, and Smt. N. Shoba, learned
counsel for the respondents 5 and 6.
3. The husband of  1st petitioner , D.Siva Shankar Reddy had been granted three
mining leases in Lime Stone Dolomite, White Shale and Dolomite for 20 years on
02-12-1999, 18-06-1997 and 24-12-1997 respectively in Malkapuram (v) and
Valasala (v) in Dhone Mandal of Kurnool District.  He died on 11.2.2002 after
suffering to heart attack. On 25.4.2002, 4th respondent issued a family member
certificate in which he mentioned  petitioners as family members of the deceased
D.Siva Sankar Reddy.  Basing on this family member certificate, vide Proceedings
No.7574/M4/99 dt.17-07-2002,  2nd respondent recognized  1st petitioner as
successor lessee to late Siva Sankar Redy in respect of above three mining
leases and permitted her to continue the mining operations for  unexpired
portions of  respective lease periods.
4.  Two mining leases one for Lime Stone Dolomite mining and another for White
Shale and Dolomite had been granted in favour of 1st petitioner's father-in-law
D.Chinna Subba Reddy on 29-07-1994 and 18-06-1997 for 20 years.On 30.4.2002,  
D.Chinna Subba Reddy died leaving his widow D.Thirupallamma, a son Surendra
Reddy, a daughter P.Bhavani, a brother D.Basi Reddy, and a sister-in-law
D.Seethamma apart from the 1st petitioner as legal heirs.  On 29.5.2002,  4th
respondent issued family member certificate mentioning that D.Thirupalamma,
D.Surendra Reddy, D.Bhavani, 1st petitioner, D.Basi Reddy and D.Seethamma are  
the family members of the deceased Chinna Subba Reddy. Thus,  1st petitioner was
also shown as the family member of late D.Chinna Subba Reddy.  Basing on this,
Proceedings No.2269/M4/94 dt.20-11-2003 were issued by 2nd respondent  
recognizing D.Thrupalamma as successor lessee to late D.Subba Reddy.  
5. D.Tirupallamma, mother-in-law of 1st petitioner submitted representation to
the then Chief Minister, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 24.7.2007 complaining
that 1st petitioner was issued family member certificate on the death of her son
late D.Siva Sankar Reddy; that she was also shown as a family member in the
certificate issued by  4th respondent after death of D.Chinna Subba Reddy apart
from others; that  1st petitioner  is contending that the assets of her late
husband D.Siva Shankar Reddy exclusively belong to petitioners only; he was the
eldest son and so all assets, mining leases and factories were in his name
although they were joint properties; because of the legal heir certificate
dt.25-04-2002 issued in her name by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dhone, she is
not settling the shares of the remaining family members; that  1st petitioner is
pressurizing her to give her a share of assets which are in the name of D.China
Subba Reddy also; that 1st petitioner has refused to accept the decision of the
village elders and a family settlement deed dt.15-06-2004 that assets which are
in the name of D.Siva Shankar Reddy and D.Subba Reddy got mingled and that
shares have to be allotted among all the family members;    and therefore the
family member certificates dt.25.4.2002 and 29.5.2002 be both cancelled.
6. While the matter was being enquired into, D.Thirupallamma died on 21.11.2009.
The petitioners brought this fact to the notice of 3rd respondent and asked for
the case to be closed.  But the matter was adjourned to 1.5.2010 and the 3rd
respondent passed an order on that day cancelling the family member certificates
dt.29.5.2002 and 25.4.2002 issued by 4th respondent. He directed the parties to
approach a civil Court and seek redressal in it.
7. Basing on these proceedings, the 2nd respondent by orders in
Ref.3-39/M4/97 dt.10-05-2010 revoked the orders issued on 17-07-2002 and 20-11-
2003 issued by him recognizing 1st petitioner and D.Thirupallamma as successor
lessees.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the
order dt.1.5.2010 passed by 3rd respondent and also the proceedings of 2nd
respondent dt.10.5.2010 revoking the orders passed by him recognising the 1st
petitioner and Tirupallamma as successor lessees.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that 3rd respondent had no
jurisdiction to cancel the family member certificates dt.25.4.2002 and
29.5.2002;  that from the date of death of D.Siva Sankar Reddy, the 1st
petitioner had been operating the mining leases mentioned in the proceedings
dt.17.7.2002 of 2nd respondent; the 3rd respondent was informed about the death
of Tirupallamma on 21.11.2009 itself and in spite of that he passed orders on
1.5.2010 cancelling the family member certificates; once Thirupallamma died the
complaint filed by her abated; the order of 3rd respondent dt.1.5.2010 is
without jurisdiction and therefore the consequential order dt. 10.5.2010 of 2nd
respondent basing on it is also erroneous and unsustainable.  It is also stated
by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a suit O.S.No.1 of 2005 was
filed before the court of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool by petitioners
seeking partition of the properties of D.Shiva Shankar Reddy and D.China Subba
Reddy in which respondents 5 and 6 and others are parties, that the said suit is
pending and that a decision on the suit is expected shortly.
10. Learned Government Pleader submits that although 1st petitioner was declared
as successor lessee to the mining leases granted in favour of her husband by
Proceedings dt.17.7.2002 and Tirupallamma was declared as successor lessee by
Proceedings dt.20.11.2003 to the mining lease granted in favour of her husband
D.Chinna Subba Reddy, there were two distinct family certificates  dt.25.4.2002
and 29.5.2002 issued by 4th respondent and that after death of Siva Sankar Reddy
and Chinna Subba Reddy disputes arose among the parties; a representation was
made by D.Tirupallamma to the Honourable Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and an
enquiry was initiated, and after receiving the enquiry report of 4th respondent,
3rd respondent rightly cancelled the family member certificates issued by 4th
respondent. It is contended that 3rd respondent directed the parties to approach
the competent Civil Court and obtain a decision as to who are the correct heirs
in respect of assets /properties/mining leases in the names of late D.Siva
Sankar Reddy and late D.Chinna Subba Reddy and therefore order dt.1.5.2010 of
3rd respondent cancelling the family member certificates and the consequent
proceedings dt.10.5.2010 are valid.
11. Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 adopted the submissions of the
learned Government Pleader and also contended that the intention of the
petitioners is to exclude the other family members of Shiva Sankar Reddy and
Chinna Subba Reddy from enjoying the benefits of the five leases granted in
favour of Shiva Sankar Reddy and Chinna Subba Reddy and therefore the orders
passed by the respondents 2 and 3 are not liable to be interfered with.
12. I have considered the contentions of the respective parties.
13. There is no dispute that Siva Sankar Reddy died on 11.2.2002, his father
Chinna Subba Reddy died on 30.4.2002 and Tirupallamma died on 21.11.2009.  On  
the death of Siva Sankar Reddy a family member certificate was issued on
25.4.2002 in favour of the petitioners recognising them as family members of
D.Siva Sankar Reddy and another certificate dt.29.5.2002 was also issued
recognising Tirupallamma, 1st petitioner and other family members of Chinna
Subba Reddy as his family members. Basing on these family member certificates,
the mining leases in the name of Siva Sankar Reddy and Chinna Subba Reddy were  
allowed to be enjoyed by 1st petitioner and Tirupallamma by 2nd respondent by
recognizing them as successor lessees under proceedings dt.17.7.2002 and
20.11.2003 respectively of 2nd respondent.  Later disputes arose and
Tirupallamma objected to 1st petitioner being included as family member in the
certificate dt.29.5.2002 issued by 4th respondent by representing to the Hon'ble
the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The matter was referred to
3rd respondent and he passed an order on 1.5.2010 cancelling both the family
member certificates dt.25.4.2002 and 29.5.2002 and directed the parties to
approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate orders. 
Consequent to this, the
2nd respondent passed the impugned orders on 10-05-2010 revoking the orders 
issued by him in favour of 1st petitioner and Tirupallamma recognising them as
successor lessees. 
14. This Court in G.Vijaya Bhaskar and Others Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer,
Manopad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District1, held that
the issue relating to legal
heirs of deceased persons has to be decided by the competent court of civil jurisdiction and it is open to the parties to pursue the remedies available in law and it is not open to Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar to issue certificates about family members. 
In view of the decision in G.Vijaya Bhaskar (1 supra), it
has to be held that certificates dt.25.4.2002 and 29.5.2002 issued by 4th
respondent are without jurisdiction and are therefore null and void. 
Therefore
the consequent orders dt.17.7.2002 and 20.11.2003 of 2nd respondent recognizing
1st petitioner and Thirupallammma as successor lessees of D.Siva Sankar Redy and  
D.China Subba Reddy basing on the said family member certificates issued by 4th
respondent are also not legal and valid as no independent enquiry was done by
2nd respondent before granting them.
15. As regards the powers of the 3rd respondent (the District Collector) to
cancel the certificates dt.25.4.2002 and 29.5.2002 by order dt.1.5.2010 is
concerned, there is no provision in any enactment empowering the District
Collector to decide the validity of a family member certificate issued by the
Tahsildar.  Therefore, the said order of 3rd respondent is also null and void as
he has no jurisdiction to pass such orders. In fact when Thirupallamma  died,
her complaint abated.
16. The order dt.10.5.2010 of 2nd respondent is based on the order dt.1.5.2010
of the 3rd respondent and therefore this order is also not valid.
17. In view of the fact that late Siva Sankar Reddy and Chinna Subba Reddy and
Tirupallamma are no more and the fact that family member certificates issued by
4th respondent on 25.4.2002 and 29.5.2002 are null and void, the 2nd respondent
is directed to decide the issue as to who shall be entitled to succeed to the
mining leases granted in favour of Siva Sankar Reddy and Chinna Subba Reddy 
afresh. 
The 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders as to who shall succeed
to the leases granted in favour of D.Siva Sankar Reddy and D.Chinna Subba Reddy 
after giving notice to the petitioners and respondents 5 and 6 and other
concerned parties and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

___________________________    
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO        
Dt.25.4.2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.